get_segment_streams

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses 'Read-only operation' (a mutability signal) and the scope requirement. It adds nothing beyond that — no pagination, error behavior, or return characteristics, though for a simple read tool this is a reasonable baseline.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is short but redundant: the scope requirement appears twice ('Requires read_all scope for private segments' and 'Scopes: required: read_all'), and the heading 'Get Segment Streams' merely restates the tool name. Several lines repeat information rather than adding new value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter, no-nested-object tool with 100% schema coverage, the necessary arguments are documented. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more disclosure weight — and while it covers read-only status and scope, it omits any description of what the returned streams look like or how failures surface. Adequate but not thorough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema's own documentation of id, keys (stream types), and key_by_type ('Must be true'). Schema carries the load here and does so adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Returns the given segment's streams' — a clear verb plus resource. It distinguishes itself from its sibling 'streams' tools (get_activity_streams, get_segment_effort_streams, get_route_streams) by targeting segment streams specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives, leaving the differentiation implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a prerequisite ('Requires read_all scope for private segments') which is usage-relevant. But it gives no guidance on when to choose this over the other three stream-returning siblings, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. Context is present; exclusions and alternative routing are absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.